Six Flags Article on Front Page of Wall Street Journal Today

[Jew]

Development is definitely not the answer for Six Flags. It's not really the answer for anyone right now for that matter. Maybe in the future if/when the economy gets better, but right now is not the time to be developing new hotels and shopping centers...

 

 

Smaller capital investments and a continued focus on improving the quality of the employees/look inside the park is about all Six Flags can do with the economy the way it is.

[SFAfan#1]

Six Flags St. Louis has hundreds of undeveloped land. They own like 500 some acres and they only use like 100.

 

Same thing with SFA. But I'm not saying that SFA should open up hotels and things. The majority of people visiting SFA are locals and bored tourists who visit DC. Maybe one day when the economy is better and SFI actually sells the park to another company that would take care of it (Parc) they could build resort hotels on the property. Alot of people visit DC every year and if SFA was worth the 20 minute trip from DC, it could be a major park in the Mid-Atlantic region.

[TopThrill182]

Very interesting article overall. I have to sort of disagree with his whole plan though. Granted I'm not very up to date on the world of business, but as an average park goer there are some things that don't really make me want to jump up and go to Six Flags.

 

The first thing I really don't like is the whole advertising tie-ins. I understand that this is a good money maker for the company, and even CF is looking at this now, but I think that there is a limit to how far they can take this before customers begin to notice & care. Advertising is a hot topic at the moment. We are bombarded with advertisements day in and day out. Granted this bothers some people more than others, but the point is there are quite a few people that are bothered by this and will care when "Heinz Ketchup: The Ride" begins to appear at parks. I think people liked the fact that they could go into these parks and enjoy them for their unique experience. Once it turns into just one big advertisement, yes the company will be making some extra cash, but I think it could be somewhat of a turn off to many guests. Sort of like the park stores. I loved when I could go in there and buy SF merchandise, related to the park, but now the stores are filled to the brim with a lot of things I could simply buy at home. What's the point of that?

 

Another thing I disagree with is the whole family approach. Obviously the parks needed to be more family friendly; I don't think anyone is denying that. I completely agree with the decision to add the Wiggles Worlds, and the Thomas Towns, etc. But here's the deal. There is a large demographic of amusement park go-ers out there that go for one reason; the rides. This isn't just teen boys, as Shapiro seems to think. Look at Cedar Point - there's no doubt that CP certainly caters to the thrill seekers, but when you go there you can see that it isn't just teens that line up for the big ticket thrill rides, its families, older adults, young adults, etc. And you have even some younger kids standing outside the ride dreaming of the day they will be tall enough.

 

There is really only one amusement park company out there that seems to think it can do without adding big ticket thrill rides to its parks; Disney. Universal, Busch Gardens, the Cedar Fair chain (and former Paramount chain), etc, all seem to think there is some value in adding large, expensive thrill rides. Now Disney's strategy works for them, and they really don't need the huge thrill rides other parks add. Why? Because the attractions they do add are QUALITY. I wouldn't have a problem if Six Flags was assuming the same strategy, but they aren't. Their goal seems more along the lines of "let's find the cheapest attractions we can to put in the park, and by utilizing clever marketing tie-ins we can make these attractions no different to the public than that of Goliath, and save a lot of money in the meantime". Well considering all the bad things I've heard about The Dark Knight, I don't think that this strategy is as smart as Shapiro thinks. The fact of life is I think the public can really tell, or at least a good percentage of it, that SF spent 7.5 million on the ride as opposed to 20 million.

 

Overall I think Shapiro's strategy makes sense, but I think he's taking it to the extreme which will only hurt SF in the end. I completely agree that they should cut back on big ticket rides, focus more on service, kiddie areas, family rides, etc, but I think they still need to come back every 5 or so years and add another "wow" attraction. The fact of life is there is a big demographic of people out there that come to these parks for rides, and I don't think SF has a big enough hold on the people that don't care about rides to allow them to be so cavalier about losing the people that do. You have to spend money to make money. You can't expect to cut cut cut and have attendance and revenue grow grow grow. You have to have a bit of balance.

[BuddyChrist]

but the point is there are quite a few people that are bothered by this and will care when "Heinz Ketchup: The Ride" begins to appear at parks.

 

Too late...

 

It also goes by "The Mean Green Ketchup Machine" as well.

[Bolliger&Mabillard]

If I quote Bart Simpson for a second, (to make the quote relevant, sub "parenting" with "managing")

 

"Homer, your attempt of half-assed over parenting won't make up for years and years of half-assed under parenting".

 

According to Shapiro's logic, spending more than 20 million dollars on a ride is taboo. That's all fine and dandy but does that make it safe to assume that he's ALSO opposed to spending 100 million on a "Expedition Everest type" ride? Maverick is more family friendly than any of Magic Mountain's headliners, and guess what? It cost exactly as much as Tatsu did! The fact of the matter is, If you want to shun coaster craving teens and "appeal" to families, adding D-list coasters are one of the worst ways to do it. Subbing 20 million dollar rides with 8 million dollar rideswon't bring the families-not by itself and not by corporate tie-ins. Especially when the tie-ins are appealing to the group you're trying to cut the ties with (i.e. Tony Hawk, Batman, Terminator, etc)

 

Ask yourself THIS question, how family friendly are these milder rides?

 

After riding both THBS at SFoT an FT, they're really uncomfortable for larger people of the family. I am about 6'2'', and leg room is sacrificed greatly on these type rides. Family rides shouldn't mean "everyone except dad". That's what it means to our friend Mark, though.

[Jew]

That's all fine and dandy but does that make it safe to assume that he's ALSO opposed to spending 100 million on a "Expedition Everest type" ride? Maverick is more family friendly than any of Magic Mountain's headliners, and guess what? It cost exactly as much as Tatsu did!

 

Six Flags+$100 million dollar ride? That's a joke right? And what does that have to do with the cost of Maverick and Tatsu???

 

The fact of the matter is, If you want to shun coaster craving teens and "appeal" to families, adding D-list coasters are one of the worst ways to do it. Subbing 20 million dollar rides with 8 million dollar rideswon't bring the families-not by itself and not by corporate tie-ins. Especially when the tie-ins are appealing to the group you're trying to cut the ties with (i.e. Tony Hawk, Batman, Terminator, etc)

 

Well, Six Flags must be doing something right to have turned a second quarter profit and be on track for free positive cash flows. Perhaps it is because those "D-list" coasters attract a different demographic that spend more money?

 

And what's wrong with smaller coasters? Judging by the first TPR East Coast Trip update, everyone seemed to love that "D-list" Mauer Shone spinning coaster...

 

After riding both THBS at SFoT an FT, they're really uncomfortable for larger people of the family. I am about 6'2'', and leg room is sacrificed greatly on these type rides. Family rides shouldn't mean "everyone except dad". That's what it means to our friend Mark, though.

 

So you're judging the whole strategy based on your experience on those two rides? As if they are the only "D-list" coasters out there? And as if every father is 6'2"? As if the big/expensive rides you're advocating aren't just as uncomfortable for certain body types? No offense, but you being uncomfortable is hardly an argument that all these new rides are not family friendly...

 

But anyways...now my two cents on the subject: Building nothing but big/expensive coasters got Six Flags nothing but a lot of debt and a bad reputation. Kudos to the new management team for trying something different. Focusing on the return doesn't mean that there will never be any big/expensive coasters, it just means that they will be smarter investments. That's a big improvement over just plopping down a B&M and expecting it to make the park profitable.

[ginzo]

Focusing on the return doesn't mean that there will never be any big/expensive coasters, it just means that they will be smarter investments.

 

It also means that Six Flags will actually be around to build those bigger coasters again some day. As opposed to running the company straight into bankruptcy and all the parks being sold in the fire sale for condos, rides, spare parts, scrap, etc.

 

I'm not saying that Shapiro's strategy is the best, but it's clear that what they were doing was going to take the chain down.

[Moose]

It also means that Six Flags will actually be around to build those bigger coasters again some day..

 

That sums up my opinion of this company as well. Sure it'd be great if they built big stuff all the time, but doing that is not sustainable and will cause the company to fail.

 

The whole I won't go unless they build something new is kind of sad. Is only new stuff worthy of riding? I go back to SFNE just about every year. The new stuff is nice, but my favorite rides in the park are 8 years old and 69 years old and could care less if the newer stuff was there. I would rather a park save up and build something great.

[Teacups Make Me Sick]

Well, Six Flags must be doing something right to have turned a second quarter profit and be on track for free positive cash flows. Perhaps it is because those "D-list" coasters attract a different demographic that spend more money?

 

Six Flags isn't really doing anything different...b/c of the way economy, fuel costs, high cost to fly...families just aren't going away for their vacations.

[Hercules]

Mr. Snyder said in June he was supportive of Mr. Shapiro's approach. "A lot of times it takes longer than you like, longer than you want," he said.

 

Sorta like the Redskins, right Danno??

 

Hey now. You can joke about Six Flags, but there is no joking around about the Redskins

[ginzo]

Six Flags isn't really doing anything different...b/c of the way economy, fuel costs, high cost to fly...families just aren't going away for their vacations.

 

A tanked economy and high fuel costs could also mean less trips to the local parks. We'll find out before long if this plays out how SF and CF are hoping it does.

[almightyfire]

Well actually I see what Mr Shapiro is doing but let's not again forget, Six Flags was a thrill park like Cedar Point. Little kids DO grow up into coaster craved kids not teens. I see every time I go to a park little kids crying because they are too short to ride a big coaster. I don't believe that Goliath hadn't brought in any revenue. It actually has but other things lacked which made a lot of non return visitors. Everyone has to realize that after you ride the same thing over and over it looses some of its appeal and excitement. You have to build new and bigger because people are adrenaline rushed and riding a 100ft drop coaster was exciting at first but after 5 rides on it the drop isn't frightening anymore. Also heavily themed rides actually draw families. Would you have more fun riding a regular log ride at a Six Flags park or Splash Mountain at Disney? People like to be taken away to another world to escape their lives for one day and that is what Universal, Disney and Sea World does. The debt problem has nothing to do with big rides, it is because of taking on and holding on to too many parks and not paying attention to them. SFAW was an extremely sorry park. It barely got a new ride and when it did it was so small that I could jump off of it and not get killed. It got boring and people stopped going. The park never grew because the SF corp. ignored its smaller parks. It would give the smaller parks a new ride every now and then to pacify us. So SF CAN'T build any big rides NOW because there is no money but I think more money should be spent on park renovation and hiring and training a staff to be efficient. If the parks were more beautiful and the staff was friendly and were more efficient, then people would want to return. It makes no sense to build a big coaster like X and people have to wait 5 hrs to ride it. No one wants to pay to park and enter the park just for one or 2 rides.

[Teacups Make Me Sick]

^^Thats actually opposite as to what I've been reading...people are taking their vacations, but staying at home and making small trips to parks, movies, etc.

 

From people that I know/spoken to...that seems to be the climate in my neck of the woods. I don't know anybody (work, family, friends) that are taking big trips b/c of the price of flights.

[Bolliger&Mabillard]

Well who can deny that family rides can't turn a park around? Most of them are high capacity, attractive to all ages, and create a ginuine park experience. Let's all face it, how many times have we seen people left and right for being too big, or too tall or whatever. I find how wild poorly themed wild mouse coasters are going to make up for not adding more dark rides with less rider restrictions, or theming. Just an honest question, Would you rather see 7 million dollars spent on a wild mouse coaster, or a heavily themed Sally Dark Ride?. I think if Six Flags really and truly want to go after families the way they say they do, they need Pirates of the Caribbean/Toy Story Mania type rides that look like they at least tried to put effort into them. I hope that what they're putting in now are just stepping stone to building those dark rides and themed boat rides that seem to work so well in other parks.

[KDCOASTERFAN]

It also means that Six Flags will actually be around to build those bigger coasters again some day..

 

That sums up my opinion of this company as well. Sure it'd be great if they built big stuff all the time, but doing that is not sustainable and will cause the company to fail.

 

The whole I won't go unless they build something new is kind of sad. Is only new stuff worthy of riding? I go back to SFNE just about every year. The new stuff is nice, but my favorite rides in the park are 8 years old and 69 years old and could care less if the newer stuff was there. I would rather a park save up and build something great.

 

True but your park has actually recieved a fairly steady supply of rides over that 8 year period while some parks have not in over half a decade.

[eskater132]

I hope that what they're putting in now are just stepping stone to building those dark rides and themed boat rides that seem to work so well in other parks.

 

Yosemite Sam's Gold River Adventure SFoT always has at least an hour wait, it's a heavily themed boat ride, and there's also Monster Plantation. They need more of those. As far as SFoT I'm fine with everything except the TVs in Gotham City and all the ads EVERYWHERE YOU LOOK!

[Bolliger&Mabillard]

^Yosemite Sam's boat ride is a damn good ride and I'm very jealous Magic Mountain doesn't have one.

[goatdan]

Six Flags isn't really doing anything different...b/c of the way economy, fuel costs, high cost to fly...families just aren't going away for their vacations.

 

No, Six Flags must be doing something different because...

 

At Six Flags, attendance declined 3% in the quarter, in part because Easter didn't fall during the second quarter this year.

 

So... if attendance declined 3% and they managed to get positive cash flow for the quarter, then there is something different going on...

[mike robinson]

I hope that what they're putting in now are just stepping stone to building those dark rides and themed boat rides that seem to work so well in other parks.

 

Yosemite Sam's Gold River Adventure SFoT always has at least an hour wait, it's a heavily themed boat ride, and there's also Monster Plantation. They need more of those. As far as SFoT I'm fine with everything except the TVs in Gotham City and all the ads EVERYWHERE YOU LOOK!

 

I still think The Spee-Lunker Cave was much better.

[DBJ]

Here's my two cents.

 

Do 20 million coasters pay off? Short term, no. Essentially, the new ride would have to keep the prior's year attendance, and then add an additional 3% or more. With variations in weather and economy, there's no guarantee that a 20 million ride will be worth it over the course of a park's 3-4 month 1st summer season. However, that is incredibly short term thinking typical of a quarterly driven corporate structure.

 

Long term, yes. Considering a well built coaster can stand for decades, the cost becomes more reasonable. A park adding a mega 20 million coaster every 5 years is essentially investing 4 million per year. If the coaster's operating costs are average and popularity remains decent, the payoff of the intial investment does happen. It takes patience to look beyond a quarterly result.

 

The other issue with some SF parks is that they actually don't need another "Goliath." Some of the parks are nearly built out on some types of coasters.

 

For example, SFMM. There isn't much else they can build in the 20 million steel coaster category without becoming repetitive. The challenge then becomes what do they add that brings a new experience. Dive Machines may be kind of a new thing, but is the experience radically different than what is currently offered? Imo, no.

 

If for example they (SFMM) eventually go through with a El Toro like clone, then at that point, they pretty much no longer need to build anymore giant wood coasters. SFGADV is in a similar situation.

 

So I don't see the push into smaller coasters as a negative for some of the SF parks. The challenge becomes more about how these smaller/lower cost coasters can address the needs for capacity, length of the ride experience, and overall impact on park attendance.

[Teacups Make Me Sick]

Six Flags isn't really doing anything different...b/c of the way economy, fuel costs, high cost to fly...families just aren't going away for their vacations.

 

No, Six Flags must be doing something different because...

 

At Six Flags, attendance declined 3% in the quarter, in part because Easter didn't fall during the second quarter this year.

 

So... if attendance declined 3% and they managed to get positive cash flow for the quarter, then there is something different going on...

 

Ahhh...you did not read my comment correctly.

 

First, the article continues on to say that SF was able to make up the difference b/c of the sponsorships they received.

 

Second, my comment was in reference to the changes in park attendance going to themeparks....not what they were doing internally to cut costs or bring in $.

[goatdan]

^ Okay, I'm really confused then about how you want your comment to read. Are you saying that Six Flags isn't doing anything different, just doing everything better (sponsorships, cutting costs)?

 

If people are staying home, how do you think this impacts Six Flags differently if their attendance is the same? You said the economy is down, so how can you say those guests will be spending more? I'm really confused as to what you're talking about...

[Teacups Make Me Sick]

^Now your confusing me.

 

My original point was that I think that SF should build in the surrounding areas b/c there is no place for a family to go (hotels, movies, mini-golf, etc).

 

Then something was brought up to my attention about the answer isn't building hotels and activities for families to do around the park.

 

I disagreed and illustrated that the places that have places for people to stay and make it a mini-vacation are the places that are more successful. Particularly b/c of the economy, people are taking day-cations....driving to a place where they can stay for a few days.

 

My point is that if SF wants to increase there attendance...they have to make it worthwhile for a family. Especially if they are going to travel more then 2 hours to get to the park.

 

Just an observation...thats all!

[coasterbear30]

I don't think that any SF park has to get a new coaster every few years but at least give us an exciting flat or SOMETHING. My home park (SFOG) has hardly any good flats (Acrophobia and the Wheelie are about it.) They could remove Splash Water Falls (which no one rides anymore) and put in a giant Huss frisbee or a Skyhawk type ride or I would even take a Top Spin. Just give us something besides a kiddy ride. I am one to try and not complain but if we don't get something decent next year then I will be reconsidering buying a season pass. As far as cheaper coasters go, I wouldn't mind seeing more Intamin impulses(ala Wicked Twister/V2/Voodoo) or wood twisters (ala Thunderhead/Roar/Lightning Racer) They would be cheaper and would still bring out the crowds.

[goatdan]

...

 

Just an observation...thats all!

 

Aha, that makes sense.

 

I will say though that the cost to build outside the parks must not have enough return on investment potential, or at least previously haven't, or else other places would be doing it. And in some of the markets, there has been stuff built.

 

I'll also say that with even a couple day vacation, if I was going to make a Six Flags park my main destination, I can't say that I would want to hang out there longer paying for a hotel if my options are things that I can do at home like movies and whatnot. At that point, I'd rather spend a second day at the Six Flags park, or look for another larger attraction nearby that would provide me with a unique experience... and Six Flags has *no* business building essentially 'second gates' right now.

 

You may be right though. It would be interesting to know if the parks without much near them are performing better or worse than the parks with more near them this year. Does anyone know if Six Flags reports such information?